(It's possible to get the gist of this first part by scrolling to the section that begins with the question "What are the implications...?")
The first section, on "Navigating Britain's EU Referendum Decision," sadly employs the sort of language we have come to expect in this referendum debate and sets the tone for what follows. Speaking of the IMF (described as "closely aligned with EU institutions") as "suitably obliging" the UK government excuses Boot from engaging with the economic argument presented by the IMF. A slur will do. And maybe to warn us against taking the arguments of the Remain campaign too seriously, he considers it important to notice how "highly emotive" it is; he does not note that this is true for the Leave campaign as well. Clearly, we are not to expect a balanced presentation in this post. This is a fight between big, bad Goliath and heroic David and Joe Boot intends to give David all the help he can. He is right about this:
"Remarkably, then, the popular case being put forward for remaining in the EU is conspicuously missing any substantive appeal to a sense of shared European values, the public good of European institutions for Britain, of a shared European identity, or the importance of an ‘ever closer union’ that has actuated the expanding European dream for decades. Instead we are essentially hearing appeals to people’s immediate fears of potential economic problems rather than a more robust defense of and advocacy for the European vision and its institutions, in which Britain is currently embedded and continuously funds with tax-payer money."
Except that this is not really remarkable, given who does the arguing. Did anyone really expect that David Cameron would admit that his much touted "British values" are actually shared across Europe? Does the Conservative party have more than a small handful of politicians who dare to speak of the shared Christian heritage of Europe? The failure to see the public good of European institutions or to admit a shared European identity or to speak up for shared European values is widespread within the Tory party and certainly by the time Joe Boot wrote his post the whole referendum debate was still a matter of Tories debating each other. But this itself does not yet us whether there are in fact shared European values etc.
The economic argument is predictable. We are asked to look at Norway and Switzerland, noticing that they are doing well outside the EU. As always, this ignores that main motivations for Brexit are the desire to limit immigration from EU countries and to do away with requirements to submit to EU standards. In what sense can Norway and Switzerland who have to abide by EU rules and standards and have a higher proportion of EU immigrants than the UK be held up as examples now? But our interest is not really in the economics and we agree on how impossible it is to make reliable predictions. Martin Lewis is eloquent on this.
So what about the distinctly Christian argument? Joe Boot notes that Christians want to have their view of all human institutions controlled by Scripture and that there are four such institutions which God clearly established, namely marriage, family, the church, and the state. The separation of marriage and family into two institutions is debatable but we need not concern ourselves with this here. The use of the word "state" is potentially problematic for the discussion at hand. It is not used in any of the Biblical references given and not defined by Boot. The most important reference he cites is surely Romans 13:1-7, a passage that speaks of God instituting "governing authorities" and appointing "rulers" rather than establishing "states", let alone "nation states". Within the Roman empire in which Paul's letter travelled there would have been a good few layers of "governing authorities" and "rulers" from city magistrates via local kings to the Emperor, just as residents in Monken Hadley find themselves subject to layers of authorities from the Barnet Borough Council and Mayor of Barnet to the European parliament and EU presidents via Greater London authorities and Westminster. What might be the distinctly Christian argument for withdrawing from the authority of one of those rulers? Boot will not go as far as to claim that only democratically elected rulers are instituted by God or that only governing authorities covering a mono-cultural group are legitimate but neither is he going to tell us more about a Biblical concept of statehood.
He highlights the distinction between structure and direction.
"The structure of something concerns God’s laws and ordained pattern – for example, for the family, church, and state. The direction of these spheres concerns the orientation that they have. There are various structures in God’s creation but only two directions. We are either oriented toward God or toward idolatry in marriage, family, church, and state."
This is an important distinction because it allows him to affirm that when marriages or states "fail", it is not the structure of marriage or state that has failed but the various actors involved. The true meaning here is that when marriages or states "fail" this does not question the principle or the rightness of having marriages or states (governing authorities). But the way he puts the distinction allows him to overlook the possibility of structural problems and failures. Some marriages and states are set up badly. Hence the following is an oversimplification.
"In short, political challenges are at root fundamentally religious and moral challenges."
Yes, often they are. But sometimes there are practical and structural problems that need addressing and can be addressed without having to accuse anyone of idolatry or immorality.
What are the implications for our understanding of the EU?
"First, the inescapable reality of sin means that the close accountability of civil government and its public officials to the people being governed is central to a Christian understanding of statecraft. The more distant and removed from direct accountability governments and their bureaucracies are, the greater the threat to people’s freedom and self-determination under God."
This is of course a standard argument. The EU is bad because it's far away. There are some practical issues that would need to be addressed here about how accountability should and can work in a global economy but, being entrusted with teaching the word of God rather than with state affairs, what worries me most is the phrase "central to a Christian understanding of statecraft". It is of course not backed up by any reference either to the Scriptures or Christian tradition. From where did the ideal of "people's freedom and self-determination under God" spring and how is it defined? Why and in what sense is democracy central to an understanding of statecraft that seeks to be Christian? (I myself would want to explore what Orthodox Christians, Western medieval theologians, and the Church Fathers thought about this. I suspect that Boot's version of Protestantism makes such questions irrelevant.) And if "Christian" means "controlled by Scripture", where is the Scriptural argument for the supremacy of (national) parliaments?
"Second, what especially arises from the Christian understanding of the state, that is peculiarly relevant here, is the importance of maintaining realistic expectations of political institutions and so limiting institutional political power in the light of sin."
Apparently the founders of the EU had Utopian dreams and usurping the role of God. Sorry, I just don't think that having too high expectations of what the EU institutions could do if we only let them is the problem of our time. And Boot assumes rather than argues that reducing the geographical reach of political institutions equates with limiting institutional political power. The opposite may be true in all sorts of ways. People might have fewer unrealistic expectations of a government that is further away. Also, those who set their hopes in "a planned society, created by political engineering" will seek to reduce federalist arrangements (governments at different levels) in favour of centralisation. The suggestion that Eurocrats are planning for a Gleichschaltung of Europe is fear mongering. The EU will not overcome the problem of sin but neither will the UK leaving the EU lead to a significant reduction of sin, let alone overcome the problem of sin. Joe Boot acknowledges this. Yet he skews the discussion by suggesting that the case for remaining in the EU rests on the hope of "providing socio-political salvation through technocratic means."
For Joe Boot this is as a black and white issue. On the one hand is an idolatrous vision of salvation through the state. On the other hand, a state that humbly sticks to its basic tasks, "the restraint of evil and the commending of righteousness" and leave other things to human institutions that are not mentioned in the Bible such as charities and corporations and therefore should be allowed to operate without too much communal oversight by way of law and order. Anglicans might be tempted to dismiss this as the result of a faulty "regulative principle" found in some versions of Presbyterianism (if it's not mentioned in the Bible, it's not allowed; so no organs and no national health service either). But the problem goes deeper. Boot does not have a sufficiently broad view of evil. If companies can gain an economic advantage in the marketplace by exploiting workers and ignoring safety standards, by selling fake products or by using misleading labels etc., is that not evil? And is it therefore not the responsibility of rulers to enforce certain rules and regulations? If certain ways of going about your trade or engaging in fishing and agriculture come at a huge environmental cost which is borne by communities that are not party to the transaction rather than by the seller and buyer, is that not evil that needs to be restrained? Is evil no longer evil if addressing it might interfere with free trade?
